If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Drugs Legislation
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What should be changed? What's fine as it is?
0
Comments
The reason I've started this thread is because I feel like my perception of things have changed, as they often do quite quickly at my age. My drugs experience is less tainted by the things that happened as a young teenager. It's also been a while since we've had a big thread about the generalities, to my mind anyway. So I want to see what people think now, and stuff.
So what should be changed in your opinion? We did an interesting survey on this kind of thing on TheSite.org last year. Not that surprising, but people who have used drugs are for de-criminalisation etc, whereas those who use are more likelt to favour harsher punishments for those who sell or even use drugs.
I personally would like to see the UK going down the route of Amsterdam. Don't know enough about it to give much more detail but it seemed to make sense to me. Don't know their policies on harder drugs mind you.
(ETA Blagsta's quote)
The goverment should purchase huge quantites of drugs and give them away (paid for by our taxes) to people who want to take them in the UK.
Once people can get 'safer' drugs for free. Why would anyone want to pay for drugs from a dealer when they can get them for free?
Think off the reducation in crime as people would no longer need to steal to fund their habit.
This way we could also help people who want to come of drugs much more effectivley and ensure they are able to take drugs by the safest possible means.
I understand drugs are not going to dissapear overnight, however we need to take the huge profits out of drug dealing.
This is an idea suggested by some liberal economists, however no goverment would ever have the political balls to do it.
:thumb:
That as an adult, free individual in full possession of my faculties I am threatened with punishment if I choose to take certain substances for my own recreation is one of the biggest and most supremely absurd injustices in the history of mankind. Simple as that.
No, the dutch model, although better than here is a stupid half way point, the trade is still virtually totally controlled by nasty criminals.
Intoxication is a natural instint, every society and virtually every person in those societies has at some point sought out and used intoxicants. It is not something we can legislate away.
I would like to see a phased introduction of government licenced shops where people could buy cannabis and other recreational drugs.
Heroin should be available on prescription and treatment centres should have little or no waiting lists.
What is most disgusting about the current policy is not that its a massive failure, its that the government knows full well it is a massive failure and continues with it anyway.
See I have a slight ethical dilemma in that I am for legalisation of drugs under the conditions you describe, but wouldn't bat an eyelid if smoking was banned. Totally consistent and not at all about the personal gain, me, clearly :angel:
Smoking shouldnt be banned, but shops selling cigs should have to get a licence like those selling alcohol, that way you could better regulate how they are sold.
Having said that though I would stop this persistant upwards tax on cigs because it is purely taking advantage of those addicted and is fueling a black market.
Neither is murder legislation, but not many people call for the repeal of those
That was a lazy point Blagsta and not worthy of you.
For me, the question is more a case of why these drugs are illegal not whether the law "works". If they are to be illegal then we must justify that and I presonally don't believe that health reasons are sufficient when alcohol, caffeine and nictine (all addictive) are apparently perfectly acceptable substances.
It's a bit different don't you think. It can be argued that the legalisation of certain drugs could be benificial for society in general, and that the law in many cases |S the problem. I don't think you can argue that for murder.
But you can argue that just because one potentially damaging substance is legal is not justification to another legal. Of course it does help to show how hypocritical some people can be.
I think the fact that the law as it stands does more damage than good is best argument for legalisation.
That's a rather lame analogy. You can do better than that MoK
"We're not worthy, we're not worthy!"
Naaah, I was at work innit. Limited time.
Well my point was, that if you look at the government's drug strategy ( http://www.drugs.gov.uk/drug-strategy/overview/ ), it's quite clearly not working.
The arguement put forward is that the law doesn't work and so it should be changed - what I was pointing out is that many laws don't and that isn't necessarily reason in itself to change them.
Agreed
Whic is the point I was making. If something is to be illegal then there needs to be a reason - one (or several) which we understand.
Something that I wouldn't disagree with - but we ask the wrong question. It's not why should it be legal but why shouldn't it.
In some form I definitely support legalisation. Although, I think for legalisation to benefit society the government would need to have an absolute monopoly and I think this would need to be enforced by incredibly harsh sentences for the sale of drugs outside tightly regulated government outlets. By that I mean life imprisonment. The government would need to replace illegal dealers as the sole source. (By 'government' I mean shops licensed by the government).
And I think young people would need extra protection; a 21 age limit might make it harder for 16/17 year olds to get their 18 year old mate to purchase for them...Dealers have no qualms about selling to kids, if legalisation could drive dealers out of business it could make it harder for kids to get hold of hard drugs.
Interestingly Colorado recently narrowly voted against legalisation of small quantities on a ballot initiative and in Nevada it was even closer, in Nevada I believe Amsterdam style cannabis laws were proposed. It's a shame that there seems to be no equivalent mainstream political support here for legalisation...
I'm not sure where i stand on the issue. I can understand the argument that as alcohol and tobacco are freely on sale then the health implications of drugs can't really be used as a reason for their illegality.
Nah. There is no fundamental difference between legal and illegal drugs. In fact, the two main legal drugs, alcohol and cigarettes, are more dangerous and harmful than some of the illegal ones. We have to educate our young about the consequences of drug use- just as we do with cigarettes and alcohol. But adults should be allowed to take just about anything they might want to take. When you think about it, it is fucking unbelieavable that we see fit to legislate what people can or cannot do with their own bodies.
Is that really true? Alcohol is not dangerous or harmful if used in moderation. Whereas even pretty moderate use of cannabis over a long period of time has been linked to mental health issues I believe.
As for cigarettes, being a light smoker is not imo the automatic death sentence many would have us believe although that's another thing...As for comparing cigarettes to cannabis I think both increase the likelihood of some serious long term health problems but in the short term the effects of regular cannabis use can be much worse surely? Starting smoking cigarettes at 15 isn't going to screw up your grades and attitude in the sense that becoming a regular cannabis user can. (Of course occasional cannabis use is a different thing and imo can't be any worse than binge drinking). I guess it's all about moderation to some extent...
Like working more than 48 hours or stuffing their faces with dodgy food products?
It is estimated that each year in the UK around 114,000 people die from tobacco-related diseases, particularly from cancer, respiratory diseases and heart disease.
Alcohol
Estimates of annual alcohol-related deaths in England and Wales vary from 5,000 to 40,000. This includes deaths from cirrhosis of the liver and other health problems from long-term drinking, deliberate and accidental overdose, traffic deaths, fatal accidents while drunk etc.
Solvents
A national register of solvent-related deaths recorded 47 deaths associated with volatile substance abuse in 2004. This number shows a small decline from previous years with an average of 61 deaths for the years 1999-2004.
Ecstasy
Deaths associated with different illegal drugs are also difficult to judge accurately. One exception is ecstasy with over 250 ecstasy-related[/b[ deaths being reported between 1999 and 2004.
Been possibly linked to mental health issues in people who already have the symptoms of said issues.
Alcohol used in Moderation still results in liver damage, and if you manage to drink too mcuh you can die from it.
It is physically impossible to die from taking too much cannabis. At all.
You are right though... Like most things, use in moderation isn't so bad. As long as you don't go out every day and blow £20 on an eigth and smoke it all... you won't be a waster. Same with booze...
I think theres little doubt that cannabis can affect peoples mental health.
It played with my mind, and that's why I knocked it on the head, and I know several people who blame their anxiety attacks on cannabis use.
If I touch it now it sends me crazy.
Both codiene and cough mixture are narcotic and have abuse potential, but they are sold over the counter with no real problems, why shouldnt the same hold for MDMA or cannabis?
Cannabis has been linked to mental health issues in a minority of people. The majority of people suffer no real ill effects. Alcohol is also implicated in mental health problems.
I appreciate that if you legalise drugs then you have a great deal of control over quality, sale and use. Don't you think that legalising drugs will mean a lot more people will have access to them and will want to try them, and subsequently we'll have more addicts?